Now that the Saudis have turned him down...<br>[color:blue]"It's not enough. It's something but it doesn't solve our problem," Bush said. "One of the interesting things about American politics is, those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are the fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration, against the development of nuclear power and against expanding refining capacity."</font color=blue><br><br> Kinda sums it all up , doesn't it? <br><br><br>[color:blue][/b]Hodie mihi. Cras tibi.</font color=blue>[/b]

He's right on one count and wrong on two.<br><br>I would love to see Bush have a live debate with the masses "screaming" against nuclear power development and expansion of refining capacity. Maybe then we could actually see him on TV fighting with the voices in his head.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U

Well you can't have it both ways because the problem is NOW - today.<br><br>So some caribou and some skeeters will be inconvenience while we drill for oil in the Alaska wilderness - Even drilling and like renewable energy is years down the road, if the US wanted to, we should have started this drilling 5 years ago.<br><br>[color:blue]The same DUMASSES <br>that've been objecting to ALL-OF-THE-ABOVE, were ALSO ADVOCATING <br>CLEAN, RENEWABLE ENERGY & SUSTAINABLE LIVING ALL ALONG?</font color=blue> - are these the same dumasses that say no to building wind farms and ocean generated turbines?? Catch 22 of sorts they want renewable and yet they do not want it in their back yards or anywhere for that matter.<br><br><br>

Maybe we can get all the straw men in this thread to fight it out. <br><br>Let me throw one more in there... we wouldn't have all this trouble if all those Nazi-appeaser NASCAR dads and latte-sipping gun-toting bible-bangers would let us have some damn open container laws... people wouldn't have to drive anywhere to have a good time!<br><br>It's all thems people!<br><br>Anyhow... let's go back to Bush argument and look at all three parts.<br><br>ANWR - Bush had majorities in both houses and couldn't pass this thing because he didn't have all of the Republican support. If he's going to complain about obstructionists, he should start in his own party on this one and find some convincing reason why we should reverse course on half a century of protecting these places.<br><br>Nuclear Power - The Bush Administration's first actions when entering the White House were to stop all pending EPA litigation against the dirtiest of coal plants. That way, coal-burning plants were (and are) shielded from the real cost of their operation due to all of the pollution they may freely create. This also made all those old coal plants virtual gold mines and took away any incentive for power companies to move away from them. I wish Bush was right and it was just a matter of convincing people to accept nuclear, but no power company has even tried to build one. It's just too profitable to burn dead dinosaurs.<br><br>Refinery Capacity - The same goes here. The oil companies love tight supplies because they inflate prices. If you want to know why we don't refine more gas, just watch the refiners' stock price. There is no other reason. As for the pollutants that refineries produce, they can be taken care of, but it costs money. So if you're a refiner here are your two options: keep the status quo and watch the value of your product go up, or expand refinery operations with some new (and cleaner) investment and end up producing something that will get you less money. In a free market, you would think, "Hey, but wouldn't the next company want to make more of it cheaper and compete?" Since the 90s, there has been no other guy. Most of the market is controlled by five companies.<br><br>So Bush is really giving a few people a whole lot of credit here.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U

[color:blue]Most of the market is controlled by five companies.</font color=blue> - Well true in the US however the big five does NOT control the price per barrel OPEC does. However even if the price per barrel is 140 or 60 bucks, the big five still makes huge profits. Now I believe every company should make money and stay healthy but what they pull in is mind staggering over the top.<br><br> [color:blue]The oil companies love tight supplies because they inflate prices.</font color=blue> - Sure that age old supply and demand thingy - But really the oil companies would love to expand capacity because this equals company growth, have more sell more, plus increased assets via infrastructure investments - inflated prices does not grow a company per say.<br><br>Bottom line;<br>Even the big five just cannot go out and build more refineries or drill for more oil with out environmentalist getting in the way. As I mentioned above the environmentalist even block "renewable energy" installations.<br><br>

<br>Obviously you can't include ALL Environmentalists<br>since I don't recall objecting against Wind Farms,<br><br>But in the case of people that might object to them <br>Spoiling the View; we, I can understand in in the<br>case of Hawaii arguably one of the most beautiful <br>places on the face of God's Green Earth...<br><br>But may I ask (haven't checked yet) why they don't<br>have plans in the development for harnessing the<br>thermo dynamic heat of the volcanos? I mean, power<br>plants designed to blend into the scenery that could<br>conceivably produce enough cheap electricity to<br>power the entire Island?<br><br>And in the case of Islands that no longer have volcanic<br>action, why are they trying to harness WIND rather <br>than Wave Action or Current Turbines for power?<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>

_________________________."...or am I a butterfly dreaming she's a woman?"

Obviously you can't include ALL Environmentalists since I don't recall objecting against Wind Farms, But in the case of people that might object to them <br>(1) Spoiling the View; we, I can understand in in the case of Hawaii arguably one of the most beautiful places on the face of God's Green Earth...<br>(2)But may I ask (haven't checked yet) why they don't have plans in the development for harnessing the thermo dynamic heat of the volcanos? I mean, power plants designed to blend into the scenery that could<br>conceivably produce enough cheap electricity to power the entire Island?<br>(3) And in the case of Islands that no longer have volcanic action, why are they trying to harness WIND rather than Wave Action or Current Turbines for power?<br><br>Answers to all three points, but I'll admit I'm not an expert on Hawaii.<br><br>(1) First, wind farms are cheap, off-the-shelf technology, and Hawaii has lots of winds.<br>(2) Hawaii power tried to build a thermal plant before, but can't, cause the volcanoes are in US National Parks.<br>(3) The very first underwater turbines are just now being built off the coast of Ireland. The technology isn't quite off-the-shelf nor commercial yet. Also, the sea shelfs around Hawaii are deep with steep drop offs, the seas off Ireland are shallow and relatively flat. <br><br>Look at the different physical properties of the landscape and determine which is cheaper to build. Wind farms make more sense in Hawaii than underwater farms. The steep and tall mountains help increase the winds. The steep and deep seas work against water farms. I agree that geo thermal plants should work well in Hawaii engineering wise, but the National Park designation makes building industrial processes there politically impossible.<br><br><br><br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.